40 analysis

Copyright to IJIRSET www.ijirset.com 294
ISSN (Online) : 2319 - 8753
ISSN (Print) : 2347 - 6710
International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology
An ISO 3297: 2007 Certified Organization, Volume 2, Special Issue 1, December 2013
Proceedings of International Conference on Energy and Environment-2013 (ICEE 2013)
On 12th
to 14th
December Organized by
Department of Civil Engineering and Mechanical Engineering of Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Technology, Kottayam, Kerala, India
ANALYSIS OF PRECAST MULTISTOREYED
BUILDING – A CASE STUDY
Bindurani.P, A. Meher Prasad, Amlan K. Sengupta
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering RIT, Kottayam, Kerala, India
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering IIT Madras, India
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering IITMadras, India
ABSTRACT
Precast concrete systems represent an efficient alternative for building construction. The behaviour of
a precast system depends on connections and it should be modelled properly in the computational models
for analysis and design. This study presents the modelling of connections in a wall type precast building
system. A case study on a 23-storeyed building, made up of precast wall panels and slabs, to study the
modelling of vertical joints in terms of shear transfer, is presented in the paper. Two computational
models were investigated to find the effect of modelling the vertical joints between the wall panels, on the
drifts and the generated forces in the walls. It was observed that the model, which was not considering
any shear transfer through the vertical joints, tend to provide conservative results in terms of amount of
steel requirement. The emulative monolithic wall system seems to be adequate in moderate seismic zones.
The provisions of tie reinforcements, reinforced shear keys and dowel bars provide the required structural
integrity for the precast system to avoid progressive collapse.
NOMENCLATURE
DL Dead Load
SPEC-X Response spectrum loading in X direction
SPEC-Y Response spectrum loading in Y direction
1.PRECAST SYSTEMS
Depending on the types of members used, the precast systems can be classified into bearing wall
system, moment resisting frame system and dual system.
In wall system, the structure is mainly composed of structural walls which transfer the vertical and
horizontal forces to the foundation. The transfer of flexural capacity requires continuity of vertical
reinforcement through the height of the wall and it can be provided with coupling of bars or vertical post–

tensioning. Moment resisting frame system comprises of beams and columns in which the connections
are either equivalent monolithic or jointed. Dual system is a combination of shear walls and moment
resisting frames to resist the lateral loads. The stability for the structure is provided by shear walls/cores.
Connections are the most crucial part in precast structures. The challenge in designing precast systems
is to find an economical and practical method to connect the members with adequate strength and
ductility for the earthquake loading. The behaviour of the structure mostly depends on the behaviour of
connections. FIB Bulletin 27 (2003) broadly classifies precast connections into two categories as
“equivalent monolithic (emulative)” connections and “jointed” connections.
This classification is based on the nature of connections between the members. In equivalent monolithic
systems, the connections between the members are designed to emulate the behaviour of cast-in-place
concrete construction. The protruding longitudinal reinforcing bars from the members are spliced, welded
or mechanically connected and then concrete is cast in the joint region. This is also termed as a wet
connection.
As in any other system, seismic considerations are crucial in precast buildings. Precast concrete can be
used successfully in structures designed for earthquake resistance, provided careful attention is given to
conceptual and detailed design, and to fabrication and erection. The seismic performance of a structure is
mainly related to its lateral strength, stiffness, ductility and unity of the components. The structural
behaviour of a precast concrete system is greatly different from that of a comparable monolithic cast-in-
place system. The main structural difference between cast-in-place buildings and precast buildings lies in
their structural continuity. The structural continuity of conventional cast-in-place buildings is inherent
while in the precast systems, members should be assembled and connected to produce a structural system
capable of resisting gravity loads as well as the lateral forces due to wind or earthquake. The design and
detailing of the connections are especially important to the performance and integrity of the precast
structural system.
This paper describes a case study, which has been done to investigate the effect of modelling of the
vertical joints between the wall panels in a precast emulative wall system building.
2. CASE STUDY
Introduction
The selected building is one among the six similar towers of G+23 storeys, which is under
construction at Bhoiwada, Mumbai by Larsen & Toubro Limited. This project is under the slum
rehabilitation housing scheme. The developers are M/s Omkar Realtors, Mumbai. Currently, this is the
tallest precast building in India. This case study is based on the drawings, design report and
computational models presented by L&T Ltd.
Building Description
It is a rectangular building with plan dimensions 45.8m × 19.69m. The total height is 70m. Figure 1
shows the ETABS plan view of the typical floor of the selected building. The appropriate type of precast
system for the given height of building is the wall system, which gives adequate lateral load resistance.
Advantages like fast and repetitive construction, good quality and finish due to factory controlled
production, cost competitiveness etc., supported the selection of the system. The typical floors have a
projection of approximately 1m on two sides with respect to the ground storey. To avoid the complicated
details of a precast cantilever supporting system at the first floor level, conventional cast-in-place
construction was adopted for the ground storey.

Wall panel WP-05
FIGURE 1. ETABS VIEW OF THE FLOOR PLAN OF THE BUILDING (Courtesy: L&T Ltd.)
Stuctural Stability
The stability of the structure was considered against the gravity loads, lateral loads from wind and
earthquake, and the accidental loads like explosion. The precast design followed an emulation of cast-in-
place system. Inter-connected walls are provided in orthogonal directions. The wall joints are such that an
entire wall acts as an equivalent monolithic system under lateral loads. The connections between different
panels are wet connections, and are able to transfer in-plane shear, flexural tension and compression.
Toilet pods, which are U-shaped units, act as small core units. The wall-to-floor area ratio is 5.7% for
shorter direction and 2.2% for longer direction.
Connections
Horizontal Joint: A horizontal connection between panels transfers vertical stresses due to gravity loads
and any out-of-plane bending due to eccentricity of the loads. It also transfers vertical stresses due to
cantilever action of the wall and horizontal shear under lateral loads. The horizontal joint between panels
at a floor level is made by projecting dowel bars from the lower panel. They are inserted into the dowel
tubes provided in the upper panel and grouted at site using non-shrink, non-metallic grout. Shear force is
transmitted by dowel action of the bars. Any shear capacity of the grout is ignored. The dowels are
designed to generate their tension capacity. They are placed continuously from the foundation to the roof.
Tie reinforcement overlapped with U-bars are provided in the slabs for slab-to-wall connection. Figure 2
shows a typical detail of horizontal joint.
FIGURE 2. TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION OF A HORIZONTAL JOINT (All dimensions in mm)
Vertical Joint: The vertical joints are designed to transfer shear forces under lateral loads. Figure
2 shows a typical detail of vertical joint.

Section E-E
FIGURE 3. TYPICAL VERTICAL JOINT
(Courtesy: L&T Ltd.)
The joint faces are indented to provide shear keys(9)
for shear transfer with increasing lateral loads.
Beyond cracking of concrete, a strut-and-tie action is expected to develop. Overlapping reinforcing loops
are provided along with shear keys to take up the horizontal component of the inclined compressive strut.
A continuous vertical bar is provided inside the overlapping loops from the adjacent units. The loops thus
couples the adjacent panels.
For sufficient out-of-plane support, a panel is adequately connected to the perpendicular panel through
overlapping reinforcing loops with the vertical bar. The exterior wall panels along the shorter direction of
the building, which constitute the primary shear walls to resist the lateral forces, are provided with six
shear keys per storey height. In interior wall joints, reduced number of reinforcement loops are provided
per storey height since the shear demand is less.
Modelling
The analysis of the structure was carried out using the ETABS software package. The entire
superstructure was modelled primarily using shell elements. The walls were of shell elements and the
slabs of membrane elements. A floor was considered as a rigid diaphragm at the respective level, to
transfer the lateral forces to walls. The horizontal joints of the wall panels were idealised to simulate an
equivalent monolithic behaviour, in presence of the continuous vertical dowel bars. Therefore, the shell
elements representing the panels were made continuous at the floor levels. A few beams and columns
present in the structure were modelled using frame elements.
In absence of a model for shear transfer; the vertical joints between the panels were modelled as two
extreme conditions as follows.
Integrated Model: In this case, perfect shear transfer was assumed through monolithic behaviour of two
adjacent panels connected by the grouted loops. The vertical joint strip was modelled as a 100mm wide
strip of shell element. Its thickness and stiffness were considered same as that of the adjacent wall panels.
In a grouted keyed connection, Clause 5.3.1 of IS11447: 1985 permits the joints to be modelled
monolithic. Clause 8.1 of IS15916: 2010 permits the precast structure to be analysed as monolithic,
provided the joints are designed to take the respective forces. Figure 4 (a) shows the ETABS view of the
integrated model.

Discrete gap model: In this model, no shear force was assumed to transfer between the wall panels. To
idealise this condition, a 20mm gap was provided at the vertical joint locations. This uncoupled the
adjacent walls. The walls were connected only at the floor levels by the diaphragm constraints. Figure 4
(b) shows the gaps at the location of two joints in the discrete gap model.
20mm 100mm gap
strip
(a) Integrated Model (b) Discrete gap model
FIGURE 4. SIDE VIEWS OF COMPUTATIONAL MODELS (TOP PORTION CROPPED)
Comparative Study of Models
The variables for response spectrum analysis of the two models are shown in Table 1. The natural
periods and mass participation in each mode, for the two models, are shown in Table 2. The responses of
the two models were compared and the results are shown in Figure 5.
TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF VARIABLES OF THE

TABLE 2. NATURAL PERIODS AND MASS PARTICIPATIONS FOR FIRST 12 MODES
(a) Storey Shear Profiles (b) Elastic Drift Ratio Profiles
(c) Elastic Storey Drift Ratio Profiles
FIGURE 5. RESPONSE PROFILES FOR LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION OF BUILDING UNDER SPEC-X

It was observed from the results that, when a vertical joint was modelled as a gap, the resulting
structure was more flexible and higher modes were more predominant in the structure. When comparing
the drift profiles, the integrated model showed a first modal shaped variation along the height of the
building, while the gap model showed the effect of combination of higher mode shapes. Even though the
top displacement was higher in the gap model, the drift in both the models were within the allowable limit
of 0.4%.
Observations on Design
The final design forces were based on the higher values from the two models. To compare the design
forces from the two models, a representative external wall panel, WP-05, in the shorter direction of the
building was considered. The position of WP-05 is shown in Figure 1. Figures 6 and 7 present the
graphical representations of the various forces developed in the panel in two models, from the worst case
load combination which was 1.5 (DL+ SPEC-Y).
FIGURE 6.BENDING MOMENT VARIATION ALONG HEIGHT OF WP-05 FOR LOAD
COMBINATION 1.5(DL+SPEC-Y)
FIGURE 7. AXIAL FORCE PROFILES OF WP-05 FOR LOAD COMBINATION 1.5(DL+SPEC-Y)
The base shear shared by the selected wall was 540 kN, i.e. 5% of the total base shear. From the
results it was observed that the integrated model behaves as a perfect vertical cantilever while the other
model behaves differently. Also, the bending moments and shear forces were more in the discrete gap
model. Similarly the tensile forces were also higher, which resulted more number of dowel bars. Since
this project was the first of its kind in India, the designers followed the conservative discrete gap model
and provided high amount of reinforcement. The dowel bars were provided with a uniform lap length of

1.3m from foundation till roof through the precast walls. From the shear and tension force demand, this
constant length of dowel bars was found to be more than the requirement in many locations. This
conservatism led to a reduction in the overall economy of the project.
3.PREVENTION OF PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE
The Precast structures are more sensitive to progressive collapse after important local damage. For the
stability of structure, three dimensional interactions between structural members are necessary to produce
a robust design. The connections are normally designed for shear and compression. But in the case of
accidental loading like explosion, high tensile stresses along with large deformations will occur. To take
up such forces, the connections should have sufficient strength, continuity and ductility. Strength is to
take up the extra forces acting, continuity to redistribute the loading in case of accidental collapse and
ductility to accommodate large deformations as well as for energy dissipation. To take care of these
demands, tie reinforcements in all the three dimensions are an absolute necessity (Cl.16.5, ACI 318-08).
Figure 8 schematically shows the provision of tie reinforcement in the structure. The internal ties are to
take up the lateral forces from shear wall action. Peripheral ties ensure the diaphragm action of the slabs.
Floor to wall ties take up the horizontal forces from anchorage of floors to their support and vertical ties
ensure the cantilever action of walls.
3
1
4 2
1. INTERNAL TIES
2. PERIPHERAL TIES
3. VERTICAL WALL TIES
4. FLOOR-TO-WALL TIES
FIGURE 8. TYPICAL TIE CONNECTIONS IN THE BUILDING
To avoid progressive collapse, the structure should be sufficiently robust and redundant. Identification
and proper design of the key elements in the structure is necessary to avoid progressive collapse.
According to Clause 2.6 of BS8110-2: 1985, a key element and its connections should be designed for an
ultimate design load of 34kN/m2
from any direction, without considering any partial safety factor. As per
Clause 4.7 of IS 11447:1985, the minimum area for tie reinforcements should not be less than 4cm2
.
Recommendations in these codes were followed to find the design load and the required amount of tie
reinforcements. Here, tie reinforcements were provided horizontally, both internally and peripherally.
The reinforcement at the shear key locations provide the horizontal tying and that at the joint regions
gives the necessary vertical tying effect. The horizontal ties provide a cantilever action to hold the
damaged parts. The vertical ties help to suspend the lower damaged elements to the intact upper portions.
The horizontal and peripheral tie systems provide a catenary action to bridge the damaged portion. The
wall-to-slab ties help to suspend the debris, and prevent the damaged floor from falling down on to the
intact lower portions.

4.SUMMARY
The case study provided some information on the design and modelling aspects of a wall type precast
building. The modelling of vertical joints was done with two extreme conditions, since there is no proper
guidelines to model the joints more economically by considering the actual shear transfer.
The conclusions drawn from the case study on a precast wall panel system building are as follows.
 The emulative monolithic wall system seems to be adequate in moderate seismic zones. The
provisions of tie reinforcements, reinforced shear keys and dowel bars provide the required
structural integrity for the precast system.
 The modelling of vertical joints without considering the shear transfer through the shear keys,
reinforced with shear links, lead to a conservative design. Non-linear shear springs can be
incorporated in the model to get more realistic wall forces. This will lead to a more economical
design.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors are indebted to Mr.Sudheer Bommi of L&T ECC Chennai, for the contributions in
developing the computational model.
REFERENCES
[1] ACI 318:08 2008. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, American Concrete Institute, USA.
[2] BS 8110-2:1985. British Standard: Structural use of Concrete-Part 2: Code of Practice for special circumstances, British Standard
Institution.
[3] IS 11447 – 1985 (Reaffirmed 2003), Indian Standard Code of Practice for Construction with Large Panel Prefabricates, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
[4] IS 15916:2010, Indian Standard: Building Design and Erection using Prefabricated Concrete-Code of Practice, Bureau of Indian Standards,
New Delhi.
[5] FIB Bulletin-27, 2003. Seismic design of precast concrete building structures, International Federation for Structural Concrete.
[6] FIB Bulletin-45, 2008, Practitioners' Guide to Finite Element Modelling of Reinforced Concrete Structures, International Federation for
Structural Concrete.
[7] Bachmann, H., and Steinle, A., 2011. Precast Concrete Structures, Ernst & Sohn Gmbtt & Co.KG., Germany.
[8] Elliot, K.S., 2002. Precast Concrete Structures, Butterworth- Heinemann, Oxford.
[9] Foerster, H.R, Rizkalla, S.H. and Heuvel, J.S., 1989. “Behaviour and Design of Shear Connection for Load Bearing Wall Panels”, PCI
journal, 34(1), January-February, pp.102-119.

40 analysis

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à 40 analysis

Similaire à 40 analysis (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

40 analysis